Monday, October 29, 2012

Following outrage from India’s civil society and media, it appears
the country’s government has backed away from its proposal to create a
UN body to govern the internet. Thecontroversial plan, which was made without consulting civil society, angered
local stakeholders, including academics, media, and industry
associations. Civil society expressed fear that a 50-member UN body,
many of whom would seek to control the internet for their own political
ends, would restrict the very free and dynamic nature of the
internet. The proposal envisaged ”50
member States chosen on the basis of equitable geographic
representation” that would meet annually in Geneva as the UN Committee
for Internet-Related Policies (UN-CIRP).

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Indian parlimentarian and critic of the
proposal, said: “CIRP seems like a solution in search of a problem”. At
present, ICANN
(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), a non-profit
with ties to the US State Department, serves as the platform for
internet governance, using an organisational structure that allows input
from the wider internet community and not just governments of the
world.

However at the 4-5 October Conference on Cyberspace in Budapest, the Minister of State for Telecom, Sachin Pilot, indicated
that India was moving away from the “control of the internet by
government or inter-governmental bodies”, and moving instead towards
enhanced dialogue. Pilot has now confirmed the change to Index, saying
that the Indian government has now decided to “nuance” its former
position.

The
sudden move can be explained by India’s decision to now develop its own
stance, claiming that it was initially just supporting proposals made
at the India, Brazil and South Africa seminar (IBSA) on Global Internet Governance
in Brazil in September 2011. However, there are indicators that the
country might have played an active role in pushing for the new body.

The government representatives present at the IBSA seminar drafted
a set of recommendations focused on institutional improvement, which
pushed for the UN to establish a body “in order to prevent fragmentation
of the internet, avoid disjointed policymaking, increase participation
and ensure stability and smooth functioning of the internet”. The
proposal was to be tabled until the IBSA Summit on 18 October 2011, but
according to a Daily Mail report, Indian bureaucrats publicly discussed
the proposal at the 2011 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Kenya,
saying that the move “was criticised across the board by all countries
and scared away both Brazil and South Africa.” The report also alleges
that the Indian government only consulted one NGO — IT for Change — in
drafting the proposal
presented in Brazil, despite repeated offers from other participants to
pay for members of the country’s third sector to participate in the
seminar. India’s proposed UN-CIRP was slammed for moving away from
multi-stakeholderism and instead opting for government-led regulation.

Whatever the truth behind the Indian government’s motives in
proposing UN-CIRP, its new and more “nuanced” position is a welcome
move. It remains to be seen if India will maintain its new stance at the
upcoming IGF, which will be held from 6-9 November in Baku, Azerbaijan.